So What's Up with Bigfoot DNA Tests?

[Gene Steinberg]

So do reports about alleged Bigfoot DNA tests reveal nothing unusual?

Or is this a case of bait and switch or even outright deception?

See this:

Here's what independent tests on those 100+ Bigfoot DNA samples tell us | Blastr

 

[Mastastic]

Ketchum is a complete fraud. Her group actually created the science journal that "published" her findings. The few actual scientists that paid money for her data slammed Ketchum for poor science, and even poorer conclusions (Sasquattle are the product of ape and early man mating).

Melba is to Bigfoot, as Steven Greer is to UFO's.

 

[Steve-C.]

I completely disagree, most scientists are just afraid of the truth when it comes to bigfoot or ufo's

 

[boomerang]

The DNA is the DNA is the DNA. But it' only as truthful as whoever is doing and reporting the analysis.

 

[Grifynne]

I completely disagree, most scientists are just afraid of the truth when it comes to bigfoot or ufo's

I agree, for the most part. I don't believe every piece of evidence studied was authentic, but I suspect there may have been a few rare genuine bits in there. I think that whoever does the analysis is important because the results are going to have their filter on it and I also think that most scientists have their reasons for not wanting to accept something that breaks away from what we currently believe and "know" to be true. I think making waves can cost people their careers and generate animosity, jealousy, etc. In some cases it may simply be too much for someone to swallow, so they simply refuse to. There's also the possibility that outside groups are trying to keep the lid on something and may take unethical steps to further that goal. Seems like this is the case in both the Bigfoot and UFO worlds.

And I'm on the fence about Ketchum. She initially excited me but now there's so much bashing going on it's almost surreal. I believe the reason for buying the journal was because other journals that were approached refused to even consider it without looking at the data. At least that's what I heard and it wouldn't surprise me. I also heard some guy's wacked-out story about his interactions with Ketchum that sounded more like an attempt at making her look bad than a real story. It's kind of like when someone throws too much crap at the wall, you know they are just trying to see what will stick.

My understanding is that Ketchum has testified in court cases which lends credibility to her expertise. So I tend to think that a lot of the stuff surrounding her work may be generated by jealousy and the "no matter what evidence there is, we can't let this exist" attitude. If anyone has some good resources proving me wrong, I would love to see them. (I'm not being confrontational, I'm honestly asking because some of this craziness just baffles me and all I see is a lot of he said - she said so maybe I'm just missing something).

 

[Mastastic]

These explanations are ridiculous. Occam' s Razor....

If you want legitimate Bigfoot research, I would recommend The Bigfoot Show podcast. They separate the signal from the noise quite well.

 

[Randall]

I agree with Ketchum that there was a break in the chain of evidence. The samples should have been submitted directly to three independent and undisclosed labs directly by Ketchum herself. Then when the research was complete, the labs and their findings could have been made public. So this is no blow to Ketchum's claims because it doesn't qualify as sufficiently verifiable for scientific purposes. Of course so far, neither are Ketchum's own claims. So we're still basically at square one.

 

[Michelle]

I have to agree with boomerang on this one. The proof is in the pudding. Ketchum should allow any scientist who is trying to discredit her samples for testing of there own until there is nothing left of it. If she truly believes that she is correct and that she in fact obtained Big Foot DNA it would be an amazing find. If it were me I would be shouting it from the roof tops and trying to prove my theory with out a doubt! Big Foot is one of the biggest mysteries in my book.

 

[tom1961]

I don't understand what DNA is going to prove until we have a body.
What if bigfoot is some branch of the human family.

 

[Michelle]

I don't understand what DNA is going to prove until we have a body.
What if bigfoot is some branch of the human family.

This is a great point, and I agree with it. If there is DNA evidence of a different species or human species then it should be studied and categorized as such. DNA only tells us so much but if she has any tangible evidence she should share it. I doubt anyone would plant evidence against her findings, we could be talking about a missing link here.